06/25/1991 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,..r. , - the plantings and buffering on the southern side of this development as well as in the recreation area to try to save as many trees as possible in an aesthetic manner; that the developer will be hereby notified that at sometime in the future when other portions of the property are developed, particularly the commercial end, that another traffic planning study may be required which this developer will beax a portion of the cost as well as any cost for the signalization when or if it is required as the property develops; and that the hours of the recreation area will be restricted so as not to infringe upon or disturb the other residential neighbors. At this point, Mr. Trevillian stated that he had no objection to the hours of the sports court being limited, but he did object to the hours of the clubhouse and gool being limited. Members discussed limiting hours. It was noted that other clubhouses were limited to 11:00 p.m. and this was the closer to a residential area than any other such facility. Mr. Trevillian questioned why their rules should be different from those of a single family district. They maintain that if there was a problem the police would have to respond. Mr. Thomas agreed that the hours of the clubhouse should not be limited, but pointed out to the developers that the Commission was trying to protect the residents of the City's only historical district. Mr. Dubelko stated this was not a zoning issue, this would be under the noise or business regulations, and there mi.ght already be some regulation regarding the hours a pool may operate. If an ordinance curtailing the hours of operation of either were developed later, there would be no grandfather clause and it could be enforced for this project. The Commission can certainly require the bufferi.ng for noise, but cannot actually reglil.ate those hours. Mr. Morgan amended his motion to read "to recommend that the Council and B.Z.D. address the hours of operation of all apartment recreational centers and pools. Mr. Skoulis would like to make the removal of the 4 foot sidewalk leading from the complex to Butternut contingent on the School Board agreeing to pick up the students in the complex. He pointed out if the sidewalk was removed and the children were not picked up within the complex, they would still have to walk on Great Northern Blvd. Mr. Conway restated the School Board's position was that their first choice would be to pick the children up at the end of that sidewalk, the second choice would be to go into the complex. Mr. Thomas stated if there were no sidewalk, they wouid have to go into the complex. If the sidewalk is included, Mr. Gorris wants it made clear that this is at the Planning Commission's request, that no other access will be allowed. After some discussion, it was decided that the sidewalk should remain. (Mr. Dubelko was not sure tha,t Mr. Gorris's statements were enough to protect the historic district). The motion was seconded by Mr. SkoUlis. Roll call on motion: Morgan, Skoulis, Bowen, and Thomas, yes. Mr. Gorris, no. After some discu.ssion, Mr. Thomas stated he would like to change his vote to "no". Motion failed to pass. Mr. Morgan stated that he amended F7is motion to eliminate the sidewalk with all other conditions the same, seconded by J. Thomas. Roll call on motion: Morgan, Thoma.s, Bowen, and Gorris, yesm Mr. Skoulis, no. Motion carried. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 7-) Vienna Woods Subdivision No. 4 Preliminary Plan. (Heard at this point). The proposal is to subdivide permanent parcel no 231-27-3, located east of Woodside Drive and south of Gessner Road into eleven (11) sublots. Zoning is "C" Residence, Single, entirely. City Engineer Deichmann clarified that this was all one parcel and one block 6